No Need To Sell?

[shefcanary 2,410]

2 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

well i am shocked i do not know where i have been but i thought we were self funded still 

i thought the last of parachutes would pay off loan and we would be back to debt free ,

i also thought players wages would be on a sliding scale to which Div we were in to stop this sort of thing happening 

we were also told Delia and Mwj would not put the club at risk again 

if of course we are 60 million in debt ? 

The loans will be paid off by the parachute payments. If we are still in debt after that, then the budgets have been blown again. That is down to loss of control at Board level. But, let's see what the next set of financial accounts say.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Just now, Indy said:

I didn’t ask for a history lesson I asked what the fundamental difference is? If we have a debt, we’ve just sold out best youngster’s and we’re sitting as mid table second division last year, we owned our club and Colney so what’s the difference between 95 and now?

I cant explain it any other way than I have before. I can do this history stuff much easier.....

 

[Indy 3,300]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The loans will be paid off by the parachute payments. If we are still in debt after that, then the budgets have been blown again. That is down to loss of control at Board level. But, let's see what the next set of financial accounts say.

We should be fairly even for next season as detailed, we have bought down the wage budgets, had a £10 million pound injection from MA and the sales with parachute payments should clear debts we hope, I do have on question isn’t the last lot of parachute money around £40 million?

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Just now, Indy said:

We should be fairly even for next season as detailed, we have bought down the wage budgets, had a £10 million pound injection from MA and the sales with parachute payments should clear debts we hope, I do have on question isn’t the last lot of parachute money around £40 million?

you're anwering you're own question now

[Indy 3,300]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

I cant explain it any other way than I have before. I can do this history stuff much easier.....

 

Indeed young Nutty, but we are in the same boat, a second tier club, selling our silverware to stay afloat? The difference now is we accept it as modern standards of football….

Sorry just being mischievous I’m not serious….

[Indy 3,300]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

you're anwering you're own question now

Indeed my last response to you on my question will tell you! Just being an **** as I’m bored today! 😂

[norfolkngood 1,087]

9 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The loans will be paid off by the parachute payments. If we are still in debt after that, then the budgets have been blown again. That is down to loss of control at Board level. But, let's see what the next set of financial accounts say.

Thanks for clearing that up exactly as I thought 

And sounds far better !

[essex canary 496]

36 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Yes, we overspent on transfers and wages in a "gamble" on preserving our EPL status. The so called contractual salary cuts on relegation were not as deep as were required, hence why Gibson, Pukki and Krul were still effectively on EPL salaries. There were probsbly others as well.

He is castigated on here but Essex is right to regularly point out the £118m salaries bill in that EPL season was a significant part of the reason for the cash requirement. The next accounts will show the reduction in that bill will not be as much as expected last year. However apart from Gibson, you would expect the majority of players this season are playing for a promotion bonus to get near their EPL salary, and is certainly one reason for the better start so far.

We have an Executive Director who has told us that the £118 million wage bill and £66 million resultant debt is 'normal' though there is plenty of evidence from similar clubs that it isn't. 

I guess that you are right about the salary bill beyond that too. Then again I like the focus upon more experienced players such as Barnes.

More transparency about how to strike the right balance between Wages and Transfer Fees would be welcome especially given the Webber's apparent dominance.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

46 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Yes you are right. But why mislead the faithful? 

 

[hogesar 9,676]

There's no misleading of any king as long as you have a decent amount of common sense to go alongside what the club says.

When they say "We do not need to sell", its very different to "We are not going to sell".

Essentially, all the club means is that we don't need to sell a valuable asset for a reduced fee because we are desperate for the money to the point that we are willing to take a significant hit on the value for immediate cash injection.

However, should someone offer an appropriate fee for a player that we do not see as critical in our own ambitions, then of course the club would listen. As would any other club in this division. Yes, even Leeds and Leicester who already have, of course.

 

[shefcanary 2,410]

52 minutes ago, Indy said:

We should be fairly even for next season as detailed, we have bought down the wage budgets, had a £10 million pound injection from MA and the sales with parachute payments should clear debts we hope, I do have on question isn’t the last lot of parachute money around £40 million?

The FD said the budget was breakeven at operating level, which would mean no further loans required. The FD also said on this basis all transfers in would have to be paid out of the cash received from transfers out. So i think in theory, if we meet the break-even operating budget, there should be £20m in the Jan transfer pot! I have based this on the fact that known transfer income is only a guaranteed £22m, as it is other add-ons (£9m for Omo, £5m for Max, a couple of million on Rashica) that take you to the quoted total elsewhere of £38m.

The FD also said the size and timing of repayments of the loans were based on the staged reciepts of the parachute payments. It is usual for such repayments to be made quarterly which roughly meets the timing of parachute payments. This should mean therefore roughly £8m a quarter. At this stage therefore I would expect c.£30m to still be outstanding if they are all cleared by end of the season.

You could hypothesise that the net transfer pot generated this window might mean we are heading for £20m operating loss over last and this season, if it is not made available for new players in January. You could, but let's see what happens first ....

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

17 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The FD said the budget was breakeven at operating level, which would mean no further loans required. The FD also said on this basis all transfers in would have to be paid out of the cash received from transfers out. So i think in theory, if we meet the break-even operating budget, there should be £20m in the Jan transfer pot! I have based this on the fact that known transfer income is only a guaranteed £22m, as it is other add-ons (£9m for Omo, £5m for Max, a couple of million on Rashica) that take you to the quoted total elsewhere of £38m.

The FD also said the size and timing of repayments of the loans were based on the staged reciepts of the parachute payments. It is usual for such repayments to be made quarterly which roughly meets the timing of parachute payments. This should mean therefore roughly £8m a quarter. At this stage therefore I would expect c.£30m to still be outstanding if they are all cleared by end of the season.

You could hypothesise that the net transfer pot generated this window might mean we are heading for £20m operating loss over last and this season, if it is not made available for new players in January. You could, but let's see what happens first ....

There is also £Xm incoming from Attanasio's purchase of nearly 200,000 new Ordinary shares to factor in, assuming that ever happens.😍But against that, I gather UK interest rates are quite high at the moment. Not a problem for me on my tax-haven island, of course, but perhaps relevant for the club.

[shefcanary 2,410]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

There is also £Xm incoming from Attanasio's purchase of nearly 200,000 new Ordinary shares to factor in, assuming that ever happens.😍But against that, I gather UK interest rates are quite high at the moment. Not a problem for me on my tax-haven island, of course, but perhaps relevant for the club.

The foresight in realising that interest rates were increasing and thus short term loans with a fixed interest rate was a good thing to do, was something I can at least compliment the club on! 😀 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

15 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The foresight in realising that interest rates were increasing and thus short term loans with a fixed interest rate was a good thing to do, was something I can at least compliment the club on! 😀 

Wow. that is a rarity, shef!

[Big Vince 318]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't know what you get angry about but that was a very different kettle of fish. Unless you know something I don't our club is nowhere near where it was back then. 

Exactly right. One of the best clubs in the whole land with three top five finishes, UEFA Cup last 16 and two FA Cup semis.

[ricardo 7,395]

18 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Exactly right. One of the best clubs in the whole land with three top five finishes, UEFA Cup last 16 and two FA Cup semis.

But not even one star😉

[Commonsense 624]

4 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Where have you got that from ? 

The fact he travelled with the team and was going to be in the squad against Rotherham would suggest otherwise. 

Please quote your source. 

He did stay on the pitch at the end of the game at Bristol on Tuesday to wave goodbye to the away fans!

[TIL 1010 4,750]

26 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Exactly right. One of the best clubs in the whole land with three top five finishes, UEFA Cup last 16 and two FA Cup semis.

I think we all know where this statement is heading.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

There's no misleading of any king as long as you have a decent amount of common sense to go alongside what the club says.

When they say "We do not need to sell", its very different to "We are not going to sell".

Essentially, all the club means is that we don't need to sell a valuable asset for a reduced fee because we are desperate for the money to the point that we are willing to take a significant hit on the value for immediate cash injection.

However, should someone offer an appropriate fee for a player that we do not see as critical in our own ambitions, then of course the club would listen. As would any other club in this division. Yes, even Leeds and Leicester who already have, of course.

 

So having sold, and so many are telling me that it was preordained that Max and AO were going, for a fee, why have we banked the money? Immediate cash injection for what? Or was it bull that those players were leaving? Because if it is true they were, then its hardly "common sense" not to identify replacements and spend some of that money. Surely that is what a well run club would do.

Leeds and Leicester are hardly the same. They had stars that they sold. Stars like Maddison who would grace any side. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

 

I have seen this before. He says everything and yet nothing.

Richens for PM.

[BigFish 1,988]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So having sold, and so many are telling me that it was preordained that Max and AO were going, for a fee, why have we banked the money? Immediate cash injection for what? Or was it bull that those players were leaving? Because if it is true they were, then its hardly "common sense" not to identify replacements and spend some of that money. Surely that is what a well run club would do.

Leeds and Leicester are hardly the same. They had stars that they sold. Stars like Maddison who would grace any side. 

So much of these debate is based on supposition, guess work and fake news. I was widely supposed the AO and Max would leave this window and that was the reason they weren't picked. It would be increditble if the club, the players and their agents hadn't discussed this and largely knew where everyone stood. Transfers are paid in installments and the cash flow would be known by the club reasonably accurately. Nothing about this gives credence to the allegation that the club isn't well run. We could also get the share issue funds in the next few months.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

16 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I have seen this before. He says everything and yet nothing.

Richens for PM.

Well he says about funding by player trading and doesn't say we have no need to sell. Unless it's me mis-remembering. 

I don't think we are mislead. Rather our club are quite open. Whether that remains the case IF we become owned on another continent remains to be seen. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

10 minutes ago, BigFish said:

So much of these debate is based on supposition, guess work and fake news. I was widely supposed the AO and Max would leave this window and that was the reason they weren't picked. It would be increditble if the club, the players and their agents hadn't discussed this and largely knew where everyone stood. Transfers are paid in installments and the cash flow would be known by the club reasonably accurately. Nothing about this gives credence to the allegation that the club isn't well run. We could also get the share issue funds in the next few months.

Its nothing to do with the players or their agents. They don't make statements that are misleading. Our squad is now weaker then it was a fortnight ago. One reason is because of a serious injury and one is because we sold an exciting young prospect. Both need replacing adequately. But both positions arguably needed more personnel before selling or injuries.

For me, the club is just banking money.

[hogesar 9,676]

27 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So having sold, and so many are telling me that it was preordained that Max and AO were going, for a fee, why have we banked the money? Immediate cash injection for what? Or was it bull that those players were leaving? Because if it is true they were, then its hardly "common sense" not to identify replacements and spend some of that money. Surely that is what a well run club would do.

Leeds and Leicester are hardly the same. They had stars that they sold. Stars like Maddison who would grace any side. 

We did identify replacements. We got them in before we even sold them. Stacey and Duffy. We had two players who we knew interested Premier League sides and who we clearly thought we could replace. So far, so good.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Well he says about funding by player trading and doesn't say we have no need to sell. Unless it's me mis-remembering. 

I don't think we are mislead. Rather our club are quite open. Whether that remains the case IF we become owned on another continent remains to be seen. 

Player trading has been negative if we look at what we had and now what we have. Rowe has started the season so well and so many said hurry up and shut the transfer window. We don't need to sell but we always have and we aren't about to change.

I'm not sure about being open. The majority shareholders only have to fullfil their legal obligations. If I was in their place I wouldn't be too open. Make a statement like we don't need to sell and you are open to questions and opinions like mine. If you want to know, buy my shares off me and you will would be my attitude.

[sgncfc 1,228]

4 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

When we were debt free we had posters saying debt wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I never understood that. 

Well, if we'd borrowed £100m at 2% a couple of years ago on a 15 year term (which was available) we'd be looking good now earning 6% on it. That's good debt. I don't know what terms we got on the supposed £66m but again I suspect the money we have now banked is going a long way to paying the interest. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

8 minutes ago, hogesar said:

We did identify replacements. We got them in before we even sold them. Stacey and Duffy. We had two players who we knew interested Premier League sides and who we clearly thought we could replace. So far, so good.

Stacey maybe. Duffy was for Hanley who could be out for a long time. So far, half good.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Player trading has been negative if we look at what we had and now what we have. Rowe has started the season so well and so many said hurry up and shut the transfer window. We don't need to sell but we always have and we aren't about to change.

I'm not sure about being open. The majority shareholders only have to fullfil their legal obligations. If I was in their place I wouldn't be too open. Make a statement like we don't need to sell and you are open to questions and opinions like mine. If you want to know, buy my shares off me and you will would be my attitude.

That's squad value in your opinion. All I'm saying is that we were told if we didn't get promoted last season we would be funded by an element of player trading. 

 

[nutty nigel 7,537]

3 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Well, if we'd borrowed £100m at 2% a couple of years ago on a 15 year term (which was available) we'd be looking good now earning 6% on it. That's good debt. I don't know what terms we got on the supposed £66m but again I suspect the money we have now banked is going a long way to paying the interest. 

But would we be better off without the debt? 

The gamble failed. It wasn't such a failure that it brought us down but we are paying for it now in terms how fans value the squad. 

[Hucks6 169]

6 hours ago, Big Vince said:

So here we are with the window shut and having raked in £40 million and spent the grand sum of £1.7 million on Fassnacht. And yet the club continues to peddle the line that it doesn't have to sell. Really? A net profit on player trading this summer of £38 million tells me that Delia remains by far the most untruthful person in the universe and that supporters have once again been sold a false prospectus. We were told at the start of the window that any players signed for a fee would have to be funded by players sold for fees. But the conniving Delia left the business so late in the window as to make it impossible to sign better players for fees. And so what did we get instead? A player who is 91st choice striker for Forest. And another free CB with the turning circle of an oil tanker. So if Gibson gets injured we will have two aged oil tankers with matching turning circles.

Verdict: the reality of the situation is that the club's financial position is much worse than it is letting on and that there is a black hole in excess of £30 million that needs to be filled by player sales. If only Delia could just be honest with people for a change. But no, it was too much to ask and she just couldn't resist another go at smoke and mirrors.

Plus Maddison sell on